Drivers need clarity on liability with automated vehicles, says FIA

FIA Region I recently presented the consumer view on liability and automated driving at the Driving Future platform, where it stressed the need to increase consumer confidence in driverless technologies by guaranteeing safety and swift compensation for traffic victims. FIA believes the transition to fully autonomous vehicles will take time, during which different levels of automation will coexist on our roads, creating challenges for the current insurance model. It says there must be differentiation
March 14, 2017 Read time: 2 mins
8054 FIA Region I recently presented the consumer view on liability and automated driving at the Driving Future platform, where it stressed the need to increase consumer confidence in driverless technologies by guaranteeing safety and swift compensation for traffic victims.

FIA believes the transition to fully autonomous vehicles will take time, during which different levels of automation will coexist on our roads, creating challenges for the current insurance model.

It says there must be differentiation between lower levels of automation and the higher levels of automation. Up to SAE level 2, driver interaction is required in some form and therefore drivers should remain liable, provided the systems are properly designed and the driver is aware of their function, limits and constraints. For higher levels of automation, drivers can be asked to take over only under certain circumstances. In those circumstances, the recording of a limited set of data will be needed to establish liability in case of an accident.

FIA Region I interim director general, Laurianne Krid, said: "Drivers need to be properly informed about upcoming automated systems and their responsibilities to make correct use of the technology as it is released. At higher automation levels, drivers expect to be able to engage in other tasks and should, in our view, not be held liable in case of accident or infringement. Limited data recording through a Data Storage Systems should help clarify liability in case of doubt.”
Location Based Systems

Related Content

  • January 16, 2012
    Dutch survey shows drivers are in favour of road user charging
    'Keep it simple, stupid' is an oft-forgotten axiom but in terms of road user charging it is entirely appropriate. So says the ANWB's Ferry Smith. A couple of decades ago, it might have been largely true that the technology aspects of advanced road infrastructure were the main obstacles to deployment. However, 20 years or more of development have led to a situation where such 'obstacles' are often no more than a political fig-leaf. Area-wide Road User Charging (RUC) is a case in point; speak candidly to syst
    Read More
  • August 20, 2019
    Aptiv: we need overhaul of AV nervous system
    Autonomous vehicles are changing a lot of things: Aptiv’s Christian Schäfer suggests that we need to look again at traditional approaches to vehicle architecture to find viable options for the future
    Read More
  • March 2, 2012
    Need for standardisation of toll classes
    In a previous article Bob Lees of Idris Technology Ltd looked at the appropriateness of toll classes in relation to all-electronic toll fee collection. Here, he looks at how addressing classification standardisation could avoid downstream aggravation and cost
    Read More
  • May 11, 2020
    AVs and poor weather – a bad mix
    The US DoT has produced a report on how adverse weather and road conditions will affect automated vehicles – it found inconsistency between different cars with these features which are already on highways and suggests limitations are not yet understood
    Read More

Highlighted Content